Have you seriously considered an advantage of some tribes who can get a small early game bonus due to having small +2/+3 continents next to their starting position vs tribes like Jiwiki or Motu who would take ages to get their first bonus on a larger region?

Have you seriously considered an advantage of some tribes who can get a small early game bonus due to having small +2/+3 continents next to their starting position vs tribes like Jiwiki or Motu who would take ages to get their first bonus on a larger region?

No i don't beleived it has been discussed, but i think there is only two tribe that has a +4.Hulli Tribe - Saraga +2 - saraga next to a utility which can be assaulted from another utility.Iwan Tribe - Inland Saut +3 - 2 terrs away from a utility.Motu Tribe - Lapun Bitaun + 4 - can be easily assaulted from several surrounding positionsJiwiki Tribe - Napa Napa Rot +4 - adjacent to Chimbu Tribe front line at Atlas SteelChimbu Tribe - Baruni +3 - adjacent ot Napa Napap Rot WanEnga Tribe - Gerehu +3 - next to a utility Uni PNGHighland Tribe - Waigani +2 - no proximity Asaro Tribe - Outer Mails +2 - no proximity

OK, the real issue here is with the amount of regions a player must conquer in order to get his first bonus.

You have:Huli - 2Iwan - 3Motu - 4Jiwiki - 4Chimbu - 4Enga - 3Highland - 3Asaro - 3--> Huli would very probably get their +2 bonus in a second turn and then could damage other players, gaining a massive advantage, while in speedier games Chimbu would probably never achieve their own bonus.

Optimally, these number should all be the same, probably 3 (therefore 4 regions for the whole bonus zone);so, for example, Huli - either make a new territory between Saraga and Jacksons OR Saraga and Faiv MailMotu - merge Paga and Lapun BiktaunJiwiki - merge Napa Napa Rot Fo and Napa Napa Rot TreChimbu - merge Gogodala Viles and Baruni Westim Ples-> the bonuses then should be changed accordingly.

((Alternatively, I am thinking about more complicated gameplay tweaks - such as giving only a maximum of +1 bonus per a minimum of 2 regions in the bonus area close to the tribe IF the player holds the tribe. That would also reduce any possible early game advantages/disadvantages for getting a strong bonus zone & being lucky in your first turn. I am fairly confident that XML would allow this, but I think it is rather complicated, so I'd rather try to balance it out by redrawing as I suggested above.))

I think the diversity is already given by the surrounding terrain or even by the layout of the tribe-adjacent bonus zone.

But it is not OK if some players, due to their starting position have a 76% chance of getting +2 bonus, while others have 14.5% chance of getting +4 bonus. If you have 7+3 troops starting region from which you can attack a lot of stuff around, I don't think that this is a diversity that enhances gameplay. Especially in 1v1 games, it throws the game.

(This, by the way, reminds me of the nature of similar complaints on Rorke's Drift map)

I think the current set up is probably fine. If you take into account other variables, like expansion possibilities for instance, Motu can expand into Biktaun while keeping their overall border count down.

J_Indr wrote:OK, the real issue here is with the amount of regions a player must conquer in order to get his first bonus.

You have:Huli - 2Iwan - 3Motu - 4Jiwiki - 4Chimbu - 4Enga - 3Highland - 3Asaro - 3--> Huli would very probably get their +2 bonus in a second turn and then could damage other players, gaining a massive advantage, while in speedier games Chimbu would probably never achieve their own bonus.

Optimally, these number should all be the same, probably 3 (therefore 4 regions for the whole bonus zone);so, for example, Huli - either make a new territory between Saraga and Jacksons OR Saraga and Faiv MailMotu - merge Paga and Lapun BiktaunJiwiki - merge Napa Napa Rot Fo and Napa Napa Rot TreChimbu - merge Gogodala Viles and Baruni Westim Ples-> the bonuses then should be changed accordingly.

((Alternatively, I am thinking about more complicated gameplay tweaks - such as giving only a maximum of +1 bonus per a minimum of 2 regions in the bonus area close to the tribe IF the player holds the tribe. That would also reduce any possible early game advantages/disadvantages for getting a strong bonus zone & being lucky in your first turn. I am fairly confident that XML would allow this, but I think it is rather complicated, so I'd rather try to balance it out by redrawing as I suggested above.))

I'd prefer not to go to re-draw....that would cause me grief But i don understand what you are saying.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I really don't think it's an issue. I think it'll even out Plus, it's good to have diversity with starting positions.

-Sully

I am incluinde to agree with Sully here. While it is not totally like Pearl Harbour, I think there is possibility that even in 1v1 games you won't get the same starting position, If you do there is something seriously wrong with the game engine.So in the end, the drop is stil going to be left up to luck. I am sure Sully will see to this with the xml coding.

Gillipig wrote:

cairnswk wrote:GP finished?

Gillipig wrote:Yes !

AndyDufresne wrote:

J_Indr wrote:But you may be right - I wonder what others think?

I think the current set up is probably fine. If you take into account other variables, like expansion possibilities for instance, Motu can expand into Biktaun while keeping their overall border count down.

To clarify on my post, I think the texture is a little odd; it doesn't quite fit. More importantly, I think it makes the map look a lot more busy than it needs to be. If you want to use a texture, I suggest something much more subtle. Hopefully this helps

To clarify on my post, I think the texture is a little odd; it doesn't quite fit. More importantly, I think it makes the map look a lot more busy than it needs to be. If you want to use a texture, I suggest something much more subtle. Hopefully this helps

To clarify on my post, I think the texture is a little odd; it doesn't quite fit. More importantly, I think it makes the map look a lot more busy than it needs to be. If you want to use a texture, I suggest something much more subtle. Hopefully this helps

To clarify on my post, I think the texture is a little odd; it doesn't quite fit. More importantly, I think it makes the map look a lot more busy than it needs to be. If you want to use a texture, I suggest something much more subtle. Hopefully this helps

-Sully

So you want something that is flatter. without the lumps and bumps?

I mean, I think it could work, so long as it's more subtle.

-Sully

And you are only talking about the ground texture - not the mountains?